On 12/7/05, geoff@collyer.net <geoff@collyer.net> wrote:
>
> I like Ken's comment in A New C Compiler:
>
> Volatile seems to have no meaning, so it is hard to tell if ignoring
> it is a departure from the standard.  Const only confuses library
> interfaces with the hope of catching some rare errors.



Volatile is useful for telling compilers not to stick  data in registers,
which is helpful for multi-threaded situations with shared memory ...
sometimes :)

If I were to write a semaphore or another synchronization method using
shared memory on unix I'd probably type volatile and then pray :).

It often feels more of a faith issue than a knowledge issue though :)

Const is ok, sometimes, in some languages [C++].  It's notoriously difficult
to add const interfaacs to C++ classes as an afterthought.  You have to go
in "full const" or none at all.  Adding it afterwards causes a great deal of
pain tracking down all the places you needed const when you didn't put it
there.

It's like playing pick up sticks with your buttcheeks. - [I think] the late
John Candy.